It bears a vague resemblance to what I said, in the kind way a pile of mashed potatoes in a certain light looks like the devil's tower (Close Encounters reference
). I'll try to clarify it here, since this doesn't really capture the reality of what was expressed or meant.
1. I do not have an antrophomopric view of God, but since you invited those who don't have one to chime in I will.
2. To say "God has a spirit", is a completely anthropomorphic view of God having things like a human might be spoken of, having an arm, or an idea, or a happy moment, or such. My personal view is this. "
God is Spirit". Not "has a". Spirit = God. God = Spirit. Spirit is the essence of Reality. It is like the wetness of the wave. The wave can be any shape, or size, be located anywhere in the ocean, but the wetness of each wave is absolutely the same in all waves everywhere, large or small. Spirit is not "a wave". It is All That Is. An anthropometric view of God cannot hold such a view, as an anthropomorphic view of God divides reality up into "things". Spirit is nothing, or better stated "no thing". No object. Not something you can point to like a tree or a Yeti. It is not "a god", or "a spirit". It is Spirit.
3. God, or Spirit, is both form and formless. It is not one or the other. It is not Nirguna Brahman, and not Saguna Brahman, or the other way around. That divides God out of Creation, and is very much a dualistic theism, which has the Infinite reality, divided up into "this and not that" statements, as opposed to "Neti Neti", or "not this, not that" understandings. Brahman is not actually Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna Brahman, or that Saguna is lesser or unimportant to finding Brahman. Those "divisions" or not reality. They are simply nothing more than a device of language using dualistic terms of divisions, for the sake of the rational mind only. These divisions are what are illusions of the mind,
when taken literally as definitions of a things reality.
What I did suggest however, understanding that the use of language is inherently dualistic so using anything like these statements must be held as simply pointers to the Divine Reality (or "God") and
not definitions of its actuality, is that the use of the terms Nirguna and Saguna in Hinduism is comparable in part to how the Trinity doctrine makes a distinction of the nature of the Divine as having both the unmanifest and manifest, which is what Nirguna and Saguna state, "without qualities" and "with qualities". In the Trinitarian formulation, as in Nirguna and Saguna formulation, the "Father" would be equivalent to Nirguna, or the Unmanifest Source. The Son, or Logos is the equivalent of Saguna Brahman, not as the human person called Jesus, but as the Logos of John 1 which is the Eternal Reality, or God, manifesting. Logos is the "manifesting" of formless eternal Father, or Source, or Nirguna Brahman.
As such, like Nirguna and Saguna Brahman are not two separate realities (though some may because of being stuck in dualistic thought imagine them as separate "things", where one is more real, or more important to focus on than the other), rather they are the One Reality, just looked at in dividing terms from the point of origin of the human mind. We can see God as "God manifest", or we may see God as "God unmanifest". It really depends on the need of the human whose mind is grappling with these seeming "divisions" of the Divine Reality. Hence why literalists imagine the Trinity is "three gods".
God is not equivalent to Saguna Brahman, as you state was what was suggested. Nirguna/Saguna Brahman, is God. God is Unmanifest/Manifest Reality. No division. The manifest and unmanifest is God, or the Divine Reality.
4. To suggest that the Holy Spirit is, "the being that impregnated the Virgin Mary with Jesus", is a completely mythic-literal image of the Divine Reality as "an entity", or "a being". First, that story is a mythology. Not that it doesn't have symbolic merit, which it does, but to literalize it to imagine the Holy Spirit as "the being", brings forth images of some Yeti strolling down the slopes of the Himalayas to impregnate young village girls.
The Holy Spirit is a symbol suggests rather that which holds the manifest and the unmanifest together, as the dualistic mind would attempt to fathom. I suppose the way I might try to put words to this, feebly, is the Spirit is that which is the "wetness" of the waves of the Unmanifest Ocean, or the "waveless ocean" the absolutely Still Ocean, and the Waves, or the Manifest Ocean. Spirit is the Essence of the Unmanifest and Manifest, where you will find in the Tantric traditions, that you can find the Unmanifest, or Emptiness, through Form. Spirit could be spoken of as the hands that unites the Unmanifest with the Manifest, and the Manifest with the Unmanifest. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All One.
You see how radically not "the being that impregnated the Virgin Mary with Jesus", that is?
BTW, I don't see that humans "have a spirit" either. There is a saying I heard that I find wonderful. "It is said we are human beings on a spiritual journey. Rather, we are Spirit on a human journey." That to me much more captures my thoughts on this.